Micronet mini-mate
I bought one 250GB versions of these:
http://www.micronet.com/General/minimate.asp
And I really like it, except that even though it is supposed to have a 7200rpm drive, the performance is worse than the mini's built in 4500rpm 80gb drive:
mini-mate
*********
\tDisk Test\t81.11\t
\t\tSequential\t76.40\t
\t\t\tUncached Write\t72.42\t30.19 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Write\t76.97\t31.52 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t76.66\t12.14 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t79.92\t32.29 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\tRandom\t86.44\t
\t\t\tUncached Write\t79.89\t1.20 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Write\t93.19\t21.02 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t85.55\t0.56 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t88.21\t18.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
built-in drive
**************
\tDisk Test\t99.79\t
\t\tSequential\t99.22\t
\t\t\tUncached Write\t98.40\t41.02 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Write\t99.66\t40.81 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t100.12\t15.85 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t98.72\t39.89 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\tRandom\t100.37\t
\t\t\tUncached Write\t99.71\t1.50 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Write\t103.28\t23.29 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t99.07\t0.65 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t99.52\t20.48 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Any ideas on what is wrong? If they just mis-represented the type of drive in there, I will pop it open and replace the drive. It seems like the FW400 link should not be a bottleneck...
http://www.micronet.com/General/minimate.asp
And I really like it, except that even though it is supposed to have a 7200rpm drive, the performance is worse than the mini's built in 4500rpm 80gb drive:
mini-mate
*********
\tDisk Test\t81.11\t
\t\tSequential\t76.40\t
\t\t\tUncached Write\t72.42\t30.19 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Write\t76.97\t31.52 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t76.66\t12.14 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t79.92\t32.29 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\tRandom\t86.44\t
\t\t\tUncached Write\t79.89\t1.20 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Write\t93.19\t21.02 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t85.55\t0.56 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t88.21\t18.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
built-in drive
**************
\tDisk Test\t99.79\t
\t\tSequential\t99.22\t
\t\t\tUncached Write\t98.40\t41.02 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Write\t99.66\t40.81 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t100.12\t15.85 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t98.72\t39.89 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\tRandom\t100.37\t
\t\t\tUncached Write\t99.71\t1.50 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Write\t103.28\t23.29 MB/sec [256K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t99.07\t0.65 MB/sec [4K blocks]
\t\t\tUncached Read\t99.52\t20.48 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Any ideas on what is wrong? If they just mis-represented the type of drive in there, I will pop it open and replace the drive. It seems like the FW400 link should not be a bottleneck...
Comments
Originally posted by AquaMac
Gosh, Why is it so slow? Have you called MicroNet about it?
I sent them an email - the sales guy is asking the technical support about it.